Has The Undertaker's Streak Become A Parody Of Itself?

[Agent Of S.H.I.E.L.D.]

Against my better judgment I'm replying to you, JASONIGHTMARE. Undertaker is far from out of shape. I'd be interested to see random people accuse him to his face of being "out of shape" and seeing how fast he puts a hurtin' on these people.

 

[Dysturbed]

I'm giving him much more or a reply than he should get too lol. If I'm gonna be stuck home for a night then its something to do I guess

Are you people for real? Majority of fans are boooored and fed up .

Some are fed up, some aren't, some are indifferent. Where did you come up with majority? Online isn't the best place to judge something like that cause even though the people who don't go to forums are capable of having the same opinions, they sure don't seem to express them that way, maybe because they don't have them. Some crowds are better and louder than others, but the people that go to the shows seem to usually have a good time. I doubt that they would pay for tickets if they didn't like the product enough to spend the money.

Its boring as hell for the pathetic awful slow paced out of shape beer belly flabbin leather claddin, mascara wearin Mark Callaway to finally hung up his attire

Based on your logic, if he's that horrible then Punk or someone beating him shouldn't be considered that big of a deal. Sure losing to someone so horrible (in your opinion) can be seen as embarrassing or whatever, but beating them loses it's luster if they are that allegedly worthless.

If GOLDBERG had his streak ended by NASH why not someone worth it like C.M. PUNK?

Different situations, different outcomes. I was a fan of Goldberg too, but other than the fact that both men had/have streaks, the similarities of those streaks mostly end there, cause of magnitude and other things. Goldberg's career up to that point was mostly based on the streak. Once he lost there was the risk of him not being a big deal. Taker could lose at WM, help someone out, and still have the previous two decades of WM victories, plus every other accomplishment fully intact on his resume. If someone who had more to lose by having a streak ended could do it, why can't someone who has little to lose? I get why you feel that way. The thing is that what could happen isn't always what should have to happen. Sure with that much effort put into the streak, ending it would be huge, but at the same time putting that much effort then ending it so that someone can beat him that is already a top star anyway (even without the extra big alcolade) isnt that necessary as some make it out to be, even though it would be cool.

One streak had inflated numbers (some victories were added that never happened on tv, ppvs or house shows) but still was impressive (from a kayfabe pov and a real one since it wouldn't have kept going if people weren't behind him). The other is over two decades long. There are less total matches involved with Taker's streak but again, the prestige of the streak is much higher. (again for what should be obvious reasons) . In recent years only top stars have been given shots and in competitive matches. Goldberg's streak had some competitive matches (and a US and WCW title reign involved) but mostly involved people who weren't viewed as having a legit chance of beating him. Goldberg's story line even involved situations where two people had to compete to get a shot against him at an upcoming ppv, even though the likes of Meng repeatedly got to face him for a belt before the ppv without having to earn anything. Not that anything should have to be earned for such a (imo) exciting storyline at the time but the point is that that both streaks were presented very differently so unless they are absolutely identical, there is little use in comparing them in a way that suggests that they should have the same outcome. Imo that is.

have him job to underfaker?

No, he jobbed to the UnderTaker. You see his character name is the Undertaker, like "John Semen" is John Cena, and "Vince Mcmoron" is Vince Mcmahon.

 

[One to Remember]

theres still ways to get unpredictability out of the streak. For example before Paul Bearer's death I thought he might lose because WWE was willing to go through alot to help CM Punk compensate to losing a match and the company's top title to a part timer who is barely welcome here anymore. Before that I thought it was possible for him to lose because it was past a solid record number, like 10, 20, 25.. Because he had twenty I thought it was possible they might let twenty-one slip through his hands. Only after Punk insulted Bearer postmortem did I know Undertaker was going to win. If they let him go to twenty-five I atleast know twenty-six might be shaky.

But to go back to the Goldberg reference you guys were arguing about above, if you had a wrestler on a Goldberg type streak I would see his type of streak taking precedence over Undertaker's and his defeat to Undertaker would be the third or fourth match before the guy on the Goldberg streak took the title. It can definitely go to the right up and comer and if he has momentum and he goes against Taker, the unpredictability re-enters..

I am kinda tired of the streak but I still see it as a tool WWE can utilize in a few ways.

 

[The Ram]

Like people said it's not a matter of predicatnility or anything, Undertaker just has the best matches period. The Undertaker's matches are THE mainevent matches even if it isn't, last for me anyways. For the last 4 manias Undertaker's matches are the only ones that I have a very vivid memory. Wrestlemania 24 is the only mania where I have vivid memory of multiple matches, and that's a mania with one of the best money in the bank ladder matches, Randy orton (when he was arguably at his best) vs. John Cena (when I didn't dislike him as much) vs. Triple H (When he was still a regular), and Ric flair vs. Shawn Michaels. Undertaker comes back year after year to defend the streak just because he deserves it.

To Put it in perspective CM Punk vs. Undertaker this year last 23 minutes and I thought it was only like 10 just to show how much I enjoyed the match. On the otherhand Lesnar vs. Triple H lasted about the same amount of time and I thought it lasted 50 minutes. Undertaker saves wrestlemania for me and I don't mind him coming back and I want him to win everytime, but I have to admit undertaker vs. triple H at mania 27 had me scared and so did Michaels vs. Undertaker at 25. If Undertaker decides to go another year I've said it before and I'll say it again Undertaker vs. John Cena in a submission match, make it happen.

 

[shalliin]

I think the opposite of what most seem to be saying here. For the last few years, I've felt that it was for more predictable that they would have Taker lose then win, and was happily suprised when the Streak continued. Once it hit 17-0 I started planning for it to end at 19-1 or something like that. I never expected it to get to 20-0. If Edge or Orton didn't win, then it was most likely going to be HBK or HHH. Especially considering that Taker/HHH was the third time at Mania for them though WWE did everything it could to pretend their first match didn't happen in the lead up to the 2nd and 3rd.

Aside from the 4 years of HBK/HHH prior to that the best shot or most liekly win would have been Orton or Edge. But Edge's injuries and eventual early retirement showed it was a good thing it didn't happen for him, though his winning would have firmly put him in the top tier of guys. Orton's wellness policy issues and backstage heat showed he wasn't mature enough and pushed to hard too early for it to be a success for him to have it. And keeping Taker and Cena away from each other at Mania has been good for business as it has mostly provided at least 2 enjoyable, tense actioned matches at the biggest show of them all.

 

[shalliin]

So every year that he was told to win was an accident? sure the first 9 were meh opponents for the most part but he was still booked to win that wasn't an accident that was by design.

Now yes it's true prior to WrestleMania 21 the streak was only mentioned in passing not a selling point but the people who grew up watching knew he won every year if you didn't thats your problem.

He meant there was never a plan for people to recognize or storyline Taker winning at Mania. The first time I recall it as part of a major storyline was when he was facing Edge since at the time Edge was himself something like 7-0 at Mania.

They never sat down and said 'let's have Taker win every Mania he's in.' It's just that their stories always lead to events with injuries and personalities that had him winning time and again until they looked back and realized that 'oh wait, here's an idea, Looking back now, Taker has actually never lost at Mania, let's run with that angle adding fuel to the match againts Orton'

 

[shalliin]

Are you people for real? Majority of fans are boooored and fed up . Its boring as hell for the pathetic awful slow paced out of shape beer belly flabbin, leather claddin, mascara wearin Mark Callaway to finally hung up his attire. If GOLDBERG had his streak ended by NASH why not someone worth it like C.M. PUNK? The guy had the title and was the longest reigning champion ever and have him job to underfaker? Please. I hope CM Punk take a permanent vacation and ends up IN TNA the way he was so misused and thrown out of the title picture to make crybaby john semen happy with his brand new toy he can show off geeeez. If STING ever fought underfaker he would have to win he won't job to him he said it. That is one of the reasons why he is a LEGEND

You madam, are an idiot.

1)Nash didn't win clean it took Hall with a Taser to beat Goldberg, and anyone who followed it new that Goldberg sucked. Sure he was strong, but he couldn't tell a story in the ring if his career depended on it. There's a reason WWE dropped him so fast when they bought WCW and only brought him back for the pathetic match against Lesnar.

2) learn wrestling history. Bruno, BackLund, and Hogan himself all had title reigns a lot longer (6+ yrs in some cases) then Punk's. Hell I think Honky's reign as IC champ was longer(but I might be wrong, too bored to look it up)

3) Sting wouldn't need to job to Taker since Sting is about as talented as David Arquette. Taker would never agree to be in a match with Sting since Sting is a Legend only in the minors. Sting is like Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, sure it's great to be the all time home run king, but it's slightly less so to be the home run king of the minor leagues. That just means you were solid and dependable but never good enough to make it in the big leagues.

 

[shalliin]

I'm giving him much more or a reply than he should get too lol. If I'm gonna be stuck home for a night then its something to do I guess


Some are fed up, some aren't, some are indifferent. Where did you come up with majority? Online isn't the best place to judge something like that cause even though the people who don't go to forums are capable of having the same opinions, they sure don't seem to express them that way, maybe because they don't have them. Some crowds are better and louder than others, but the people that go to the shows seem to usually have a good time. I doubt that they would pay for tickets if they didn't like the product enough to spend the money.



Based on your logic, if he's that horrible then Punk or someone beating him shouldn't be considered that big of a deal. Sure losing to someone so horrible (in your opinion) can be seen as embarrassing or whatever, but beating them loses it's luster if they are that allegedly worthless.



Different situations, different outcomes. I was a fan of Goldberg too, but other than the fact that both men had/have streaks, the similarities of those streaks mostly end there, cause of magnitude and other things. Goldberg's career up to that point was mostly based on the streak. Once he lost there was the risk of him not being a big deal. Taker could lose at WM, help someone out, and still have the previous two decades of WM victories, plus every other accomplishment fully intact on his resume. If someone who had more to lose by having a streak ended could do it, why can't someone who has little to lose? I get why you feel that way. The thing is that what could happen isn't always what should have to happen. Sure with that much effort put into the streak, ending it would be huge, but at the same time putting that much effort then ending it so that someone can beat him that is already a top star anyway (even without the extra big alcolade) isnt that necessary as some make it out to be, even though it would be cool.

One streak had inflated numbers (some victories were added that never happened on tv, ppvs or house shows) but still was impressive (from a kayfabe pov and a real one since it wouldn't have kept going if people weren't behind him). The other is over two decades long. There are less total matches involved with Taker's streak but again, the prestige of the streak is much higher. (again for what should be obvious reasons) . In recent years only top stars have been given shots and in competitive matches. Goldberg's streak had some competitive matches (and a US and WCW title reign involved) but mostly involved people who weren't viewed as having a legit chance of beating him. Goldberg's story line even involved situations where two people had to compete to get a shot against him at an upcoming ppv, even though the likes of Meng repeatedly got to face him for a belt before the ppv without having to earn anything. Not that anything should have to be earned for such a (imo) exciting storyline at the time but the point is that that both streaks were presented very differently so unless they are absolutely identical, there is little use in comparing them in a way that suggests that they should have the same outcome. Imo that is.


No, he jobbed to the UnderTaker. You see his character name is the Undertaker, like "John Semen" is John Cena, and "Vince Mcmoron" is Vince Mcmahon.

I agree with a lot of what you said except one point.

Goldberg's career was the streak. That's all he's ever had as a wrestler. He was a forgettable champion and had no real big long lasting feuds with anyone and no rememberable moments. The only other thing he has is being known as the man who ended Bret Hart's career. Also being 173-0 after what 2yrs in the business isn't that big, especially considering most workers at the time for wrestling upwards of 250-300 matches a year, that number could and should have been much higher, but WCW at the time was a money pit and no one worked the small dates or house shows. It was all about TV and PPV time.

Personally the list of streaks for me goes like this:

1-Taker's Mania streak
2-Barry Horowitz's loosing streak
3-Backlund'Sammartino multi year title runs
4-Hogan's PPV win streak from 85-88
5-Goldberg

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

WM29 was the only year I wasn't excited about Undertaker's match. It was a rushed feud based on extremely cheap, opportunistic heat, directly after Punk's melt-down after losing the title. Punk needs all the momentum he can get right now, and having him face Undertaker in a match he's guaranteed to lose doesn't help matters.

And Punk doesn't look so strong kicking out of the Tombstone when Taker's last 5 WM matches had his opponent kicking out of the Tombstone as well.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good match, either, but I just didn't care.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Let's face it, Undertaker is only working match a year so what's the point?

To make money. Undertaker at Wrestlemania generates interest in the fans to purchase the event to see him put his legendary undefeated streak on the line once more each year. Did you order the Wrestlemania 29 PPV event? If so, they made money off of your purchase just as they did several others. That is the point. At the end of the day, WWE is a business and they are in it for the money.

Everyone knows that the streak is never going to be broken. And IF The streak just so happens to end, it has to be against someone the WWE is looking to put a lot of stock into for the next 10 or 20 years... anyone on the roster now deserving of that prestigious honor?

We actually don't know that. None of us can predict the future and unless Undertaker himself, Vince, Trips, or any other important official from the federation publicly announces that the streak will in fact never end, then there is no guarantee. The likelihood of it ending are slim to none, but it's not 100% guaranteed to stay until that decision is made public.

Now then, as for anyone on the roster who deserves the honor? I'd pick John Cena. Whoever ends the streak, if it ends, instantly turns heel for likely the rest of their career. After almost 10 years of being a top face in WWE, Cena needs to make a heel turn of epic proportions if he ever does turn. Ending Taker's streak would be the biggest turn since Hogan if it was Cena. The others on the roster are all not big enough of a name at the moment to deserve the honor, or have already faced him. If it's not going to be Cena and the streak IS ending some day, they need to begin building up the wrestler who this torch will be passed to, and soon.

I think when someone shells out $60 dollars for a 'mania PPV, there should be some unpredictabiltiy to it. Besides this last 'mania being the most predictable ever, what is the point of an Undertaker match if you know he's going to win?

What was the point of having an Undertaker match if you knew he was going to win? Let me ask you this then. What was the point when he faced Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Edge, or Batista, to name a few? In recent years Undertaker has had excellent matches at Wrestlemania. By then the streak was such a huge deal that we as fans "knew" he was going to win. Yet we still purchased the show and sat down to watch his match. If it's Undertaker at Wrestlemania you know you're likely to get a match worth spending money on. THAT is the point even if you "know" he is going to win. Well, that, and for WWE to make money off the match.

Also, when was the last time you personally thought the 'taker had a chance of losing at 'mania?

I had my doubts during both of the recent Triple H matches at Wrestlemania 27 and 28. Punk, Michaels, and Edge had moments during their matches when I thought it MIGHT be over.... but I still ultimately thought Taker was going to get the win. Trips is the only recent challenger who I thought put the undefeated streak in significant danger. Aside from Triple H, the last time I thought it truly was ending was against Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21.

 

[The Perfect Max]

The way I see it, The Undertaker returns once every year to defend the holy grail. The streak has, in many ways, become bigger than a World Championship. For the past few years, guys have come along saying the only thing they have left to do is defeat The Undertaker at WrestleMania. It is an accomplishment in it's own right.

20-0 would have been a great end. It is round. So is 25-0. I believe that will be the last installment into the streaks legendary history. I look forward to The Undertaker's matches at WrestleMania every year. It is a main event before the match is set. People pay to see The Undertaker defend the streak.

On the subject on when was the last time you thought the streak would end, that doesn't matter. Regardless of the thought, since Edge at WrestleMania XXIV, his matches have been match of the night. They are entertaining and the emotion and electricity is captivating. I believed CM Punk was going to be "the one in 20-1". I really did. I also thought Shawn Michaels was going to beat him at WrestleMania XXV.

The streak is alive and better than ever. I also dont think it is "a parody of itself". I look forward to future bouts. I would love to see Brock Lesnar challenge the streak. The Rock, also, would be a good pick. John Cena as well. The streak is a WrestleMania main event and will be missed when The Undertaker retires.

 

[Bad Booking]

Undertaker's streak should be like some exploitation movie. Giants, midgets, D-X, Evolution....

All handled in an extreme unreal ridiculous fashion.

"I'll make you famous....UP YOUR ASS!"

 

[IT Factor]

Wow, it's been awhile since I've replied here! Perfect topic to return on;

To answer the OP's question, no. I do not believe the streak itself is a parody at all. It is one of the highest achievements in all of WWE and no one will ever be at that level again. It's too big an accomplishment much like Flair's 16 time World titles, not too many will ever come close to that[though Cena & HHH are close]. Back to Taker. He is a great legend and will be a future HOF'er no doubt. However, it is evident that The Undertaker is getting too old to perform at the same level he once did consistently. His body looks old and frail and he only returns a few times a year in anticipation of his Mania streak. I loved Taker's incarnation of The American Badass because he was more talkative and just better all around performer. I think during that time frame he should've went out while he was still going full-time. Taker hasn't quite reached Hogan or Flair level of awfulness but much longer and he'll be close.

I'd like to see a great final match next year to end Taker's career. If the streak ends, it should be to an upcoming talent like Zack Ryder[if turned heel and pushed right], Jack Swagger[if not high and released], or maybe even a repackaged Joe Hennig. It would be fitting that one of the best in the history of WWE goes out making a new star and passing the torch. If the streak doesn't end, it should be the same goal. To make a new talent a star by making them look incredibly strong in a losing effort against Taker @ Mania. As to the last big threat to Taker's streak, I believe those choices would be limited to Randy Orton[when he was legend killer], Batista, and Shawn Michaels the first Mania match they had. Other than that, it was obvious that guys like HHH & CM Punk weren't that big of a threat and were gonna lose anyway for quick booking and limited build.